Measuring Sustainability in the Russian Arctic: An Interdisciplinary Study

xPoI Plan of ImplementationPPP Purchasing power parityPSIR Pressure-State-Impact-ResponsePSR Pressure-State-ResponsePTS Persistent organic substanceRAIPON Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the NorthR&D Research & DevelopmentRRFA Rate of renewal of fixed assetsSAO Senior Arctic OfficialsSCP Sustainable Cities ProgrammeSDAP Sustainable development action planSDWG Sustainable Development Working GroupSEEA System of Integrated Environmental and Economic AccountingSNA System of National AccountsSOx Sulphur oxideSO2 Sulphur dioxideSRW Solid radioactive wasteSSA Systemic Sustainability AnalysisSSM Soft systems methodTACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent StatesTOPF Tropospheric Ozone Formation PotentialUN United NationsUNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable DevelopmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNECE United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUSFWS US Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSSR Union of Soviet Socialist RepublicsWCED World Commission on Environment and DevelopmentWEF World Economic ForumWHO World Health OrganisationWSSD World Summit on Sustainable DevelopmentWWF World Wildlife FundYOLL Years of life lost

Page 12

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

You will not grasp her with your mindOr cover with a common label,For Russia is one of a kind –Believe in her, if you are able...Fedor Tyutchev, 1866Translated by Anatoly Liberman, 1991

1.1 Introduction and Problem StatementRussia is unique and unconceivable. The country’s special position somewhere inbetween east and west has deep symbolic meaning in terms of the geopolitical paradigm andcultural and spiritual mix. Russia has a special messianic mission as a successor to the greatRome and Byzantium, and its faith is a unique and the only true religion (pravoslavie). In fact,Moscow is the third Rome, and there will never be the fourth.The great empire. The true religion. The culture incomprehensible for others.These ideas emerged long before the Russian 19th century poet Fedor Tyutchev hadengraved them into his poem which has become very popular in today’s Russia and a sloganfor those who insist on Russia walking her mysterious ways. This implies in fact that Russia isnot a European country, its values are different from western ones and on the whole, citing thewell-known saying, ‘what is good for the Russian is death for the German’.This might be fine as a theoretical basis for reconciling with Russia’s troubled past andfinding new insights for national identity. Yet when it comes to managing environmental issuesin Russia, Tyutchev’s statement that no common measure (translated above as “common label’)can be found for Russia is potentially damaging. It highlights another myth about Russiannational character that Russians especially like – our much-talked-about dislike formeasurements, inventories, pragmatic decisions, and everything that leads to order or correctstate of things. Perhaps we like to quote Tyutchev because the country is big, the efforts tomeasure things are tiresome and seemingly useless, and the ideas about sustainabledevelopment or limits to growth sound too western to be naturally accepted. In the meanwhile,the economy is becoming increasingly dependent on natural resources, the environment isdeteriorating, and human conditions in some parts have become miserable.Those parts include also the Russian Arctic. The region is not only the land of vastnatural resources and the centre of Russian oil and gas production. It preserved unique pristineterritories, boreal forests and vast tracts of tundra; the culture of northern indigenous peoples;and historic monuments, some of them being a part of world cultural heritage. The region’ssocial and environmental challenges include the immense differences in living standards,ruthless exploitation of forests for short-term profits destroying animal and bird life, andextraction of gas and oil causing large amounts of air and water pollution.

5

Page 13

To ensure transition to sustainability, the Russian Arctic needs a sound and reliablemeasurement framework involving a set of sustainability indicators that would show trends anduse a regional sustainable development strategy as guidelines. Such indicators at national levelhave recently been developed in the UK, US and the Nordic countries and present goodinstrument to assess transition to sustainable development.Until recently, Russia had not used any sustainability indicators similar to thoseintroduced in Europe and the US to measure its progress towards sustainable development.However, in June 2003 the situation changed and the pilot project to develop sustainabilityindicators for the Voronezh and Tomsk Oblasts (regions) in Russia has been completed. Theproject worked with the administration of those regions to develop a set of indicators for eachregion. The indicator sets were designed to reflect the development priorities and the mainsocial, environmental and economic issues facing policy makers and population in theseregions. The indicators were also designed to be understood by a broad audience outsidegovernment. The indicator lists developed for each region include several themes for issueswhich are common to both regions, and which are likely to be important in other Russianregions.However, some problems with developing the regional sustainability indicators forRussia were reported. There was no effective public outreach campaign before the projectcommenced and virtually no public consultation at the stage of the indicator development.Regional administrations influenced the process considerably which in reality meant thatsensitive issues, e.g. nuclear installations in Tomsk Oblast were avoided and nuclear-relatedindicators including nuclear safety, radioactive waste, etc. not included into the set. In addition,good governance and civil society issues were set aside as well.These valuable lessons from the experience of designing regional sustainability indicatorsets in Russia were taken into consideration when developing the indicators for the RussianArctic.The present study is the first comprehensive assessment of socio-economic andenvironmental situation in the Russian Arctic using the set of socially construed Arctic-specificsustainability indicators as an assessment framework. The progress towards sustainabledevelopment has been assessed for the six regions: Murmansk Oblast, Nenets AutonomousOkrug, Sakha-Yakutia Republic, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr, and Chukotka (seeFigure 2.3). The regional experience in developing sustainability indicators in Russia wasconsidered in identifying which indicators are most suitable for use in the specific conditions ofthe Arctic. For the first time, nuclear-related indicators and indicators on public involvement andindigenous issues were included into the regional sustainability assessment framework inRussia.In addition, this study was meant to prove that a common measure and common labelcould be found for Russia. Old myths die hard. While it is still important to believe in Russia, it is

6

Page 14

time to start looking for ways to gauging progress towards sustainable development in theRussian North for the sake of future generations.1.2 Research ObjectivesThe study’s main objective was to attempt to capture the complex socio-economic andenvironmental situation in the Russian Arctic through sustainability assessment and to provide abackbone for other Russian Northern regions in developing their own core sustainabilityindicator sets. Given the current lack of international consensus on the indicator sets, the studyattempted to provide a common ground for the indicator establishment in Russia usinginteractive approach and public consultations. Based on the study’s results, the implications forfurther policy actions both for Russia and the European Union are highlighted.Another goal was to analyse public attitudes and opinions in relation to the sustainabilityindicator set suggested and to measure the level of public interest in the sustainability issues.The multiple dimensions of the Arctic, including the region’s specific environmental andeconomic aspects, are taken into account. Given the region’s long and poor environmentalrecord, it was the primary objective to look into the problem in an interdisciplinary way, based onthe perception of the arctic environment as a unique ecosystem, a natural resource base andthe global common.

1.3 Scientific Significance of the StudyIn the general context of on-going sustainability process in the Arctic, the need for Arcticspecificsustainability indicator framework has long matured. The Russian Arctic is the mostdensely populated and industrially developed circumpolar area with high levels of anthropogenicpollution and nuclear facilities, including two operating nuclear power plants. Consequently, it isparticularly important for the regional sustainability indicator set to take into considerationnuclear issues and the problem of hazardous waste. The need was also identified to incorporateclimate warming issues and to ascertain arctic surrogate species to effectively monitor changein biodiversity in the region.Community involvement is a crucial element of any indicator development process.Given the vastness of the area under study, online interactive methods seem to be the usefultool to overcome the distance and to hear the opinions of people living in the region. Theyprovide also a convenient means of measuring the level of interest in a certain aspect ofsustainability and in environmental issues in general. Based on those opinions and the keyfindings, policy options need to be determined for the integration of sustainability plans into theregional agendas.

7

Page 15

1.4 Limitations of the StudyThe limitations of this study include low level of public involvement and communityparticipation and the consequent validity of the results. There were only nine externalparticipants in the survey. Most of the participants reside in Moscow and St Petersburg, i.e. theregions having good access to the Internet. No indigenous respondents participated in thesurvey.Another limitation was an apparent unwillingness of Russian authorities to co-operate,especially when it came to obtaining the information on nuclear issues. Thus, data quality andavailability were the major limitation for the study that was significantly affected by the lack ofofficial statistical data for some indicators.Four of the 6 regions under study are the autonomous okrugs (districts) which are partsof the larger regions in which they are located. Since 2003, Russia started the process ofmerging the okrugs into their main regions to reduce the number of the Russian federalsubjects. Following a referendum on this issue held in 2005, the autonomous okrugs of Taimyrand Evenkia will merge into Krasnoyarsk Krai, their main region, on 1 January 2007.Arkhangelsk Oblast and Nenets Autonomous Okrug are currently in the process of setting upthe date for a merger referendum (the proposed date is December 2007 or earlier). Otherokrugs are likely to follow which may affect the regional data coverage. This study wascommenced in 2003 before the mergers and used, where available, the data for okrugs.

1.5 Structure of the ThesisThe study includes the introduction, literature review on sustainability policies worldwideand in Russia (Chapter 2), research methods, including methodology sheets for each indicator(Chapter 3), the core set of the Russian Arctic sustainability indicators with graphicrepresentation and discussion by each dimension (economic, social, environmental and Arcticspecific)(Chapter 4), conclusions with key findings and avenues for further research (Chapter5), list of references, and an appendix with the initial long list of the indicators.The study was financially supported by the Free University of Brussels (VUB), with aone-week trip to Russia for data collection and discussion with the experts. It also used theresults of, and effectively contributed to, the project entitled “The review of environmental futurerelatedstudies and analyses of uncertainties in the pan-European region” under the workprogramme of European Environment Agency (EEA) on environmental futures for which theauthor of this study was subcontracted by EEA as a part of expert team at Milieu EnvironmentalLaw and Policy Consultancy in Brussels. Two international expert workshops, “GEO-4 scenariosfor Europe and their energy policy implications in relation to environment” on 20-21 February2006, and “Pan-European future uncertainties in transport and energy and relations toenvironmental impacts” on 20-21 March 2006, held in Copenhagen at the premises of EEA,were the significant contribution to the study.8

Page 16

CHAPTER 2. REVIEWING SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES

2.1 Sustainability and Indicators2.1.1 Sustainable DevelopmentWith its notorious vagueness, the concept of sustainable development has neverthelessgained much recognition in recent decades. Clearly, nobody wants the current destructivepatterns of production and consumption to continue and to cause further depletion of naturalresources, environmental deterioration and worsening of human conditions. Hence quite aunanimous view worldwide that the only alternative to sustainability is unsustainability (Bossel,1999; Glasby, 2002), and it is inadmissible.In the absence of any other alternative, great efforts have been made since theemergence of the concept in the 1980s to define sustainable development. Its classic definitionwas coined in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in itsreport “Our common future” (also known as the Brundtland Report) saying that sustainabledevelopment is:

“Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising theability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations.” (Brundtland, 1987)

Seven critical actions focusing on achieving good quality of life for people worldwidehave been recommended by the WCED:• revive growth;• change the quality of growth;• meet essential needs and aspirations for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation;• ensure a sustainable level of population;• conserve and enhance the resource base;• reorient technology and manage risk; and• include and combine environment and economic considerations in decisionmaking(Brundtland, 1987).The concept’s earlier formulation presented in 1980 in the World Conservation Strategy,

a joint product of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),had already pointed out at the three pillars of sustainability – environmental, economic andsocial and sustainable development is meant to be an interface between the three, seeking toavoid irreversible changes or losses (Bramwell, 1994). It is a multidimensional, fuzzy conceptwhich can be described “as a state of dynamic equilibrium between societal demand for a

9

Page 17

preferred development path and the supply of environmental and economic goods and servicesto meet this demand” (Briassoulis, 2001).With the plethora of other definitions and discussions revolving around theoreticalinterpretation of sustainable development, there have been also initiatives to develop ways andmethods as to implementing sustainable development and setting up action plans. One of themost famous documents of this kind is Agenda 21 (UN, 1992), a global plan of action adopted in1992 in Rio de Janeiro during the United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment andDevelopment, or more informally the Earth Summit. Agenda 21 is aimed at delivering a moresustainable pattern of development and contains recommendations that all countries that haveendorsed it should produce National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs).Apart from Agenda 21, representatives of about 180 countries who gathered at the EarthSummit also endorsed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which sets out 27principles supporting sustainable development and signed several important multilateralenvironmental agreements, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change, theConvention on Biological Diversity, and the Forest Principles that also reflect several crucialsustainable development legal principles, e.g. polluter pays principle, prior informed consentand the precautionary principle.While being the most prominent and influential instrument in the environment anddevelopment field and a guiding document for sustainable development in most regions of theworld, Agenda 21 has no binding power and thus the main task of developing and implementingNSDSs lies on national governments. International initiatives on NSDSs have been basedlargely on international institutions’ ideas of the agenda and methods to be applied, temperedby political constraint, rather than on locally proven practice (Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002).The sustainability agenda was moved further by the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) in Johannesburg in September 2002. For the first time, sustainabledevelopment was the central topic of such global event which attracted leaders andrepresentatives from 183 countries. The Johannesburg Summit broadened the understanding ofsustainable development emphasising crucial linkages between poverty, the environment andthe use of natural resources and established it as a widely accepted goal for policy makers(WSSD, 2002; Azapagic et al, 2004).Owing to the Johannesburg Summit and other similar events, the principle of sustainabledevelopment and many of its objectives have been widely adopted and incorporated intonational strategies, and the agenda has moved from the question of “What is sustainabledevelopment?” on to the question of “How do we measure our progress towards sustainabledevelopment?” Unlike rapid development of the sustainable development theory, itsimplementation has been slow (Azapagic et al, 2004). Since sustainable development is apractical goal, one needs to be informed whether the system is still unsustainable or whetherthe goal of achieving sustainability has been reached (Bell and Morse, 1999). Indicators of

10

Page 18

sustainable development are needed to guide policies and decisions at all levels of society:village, town, city, county, state, region, nation, continent and world (Bossel, 1999).2.1.2 Sustainability IndicatorsA sustainability indicator is a deceptively simple policy tool designed to capture andmeasure a particular aspect of sustainability policy in an easily communicated form (Rydin et al,2003). More than a mere description of current conditions or trends, indicators createunderstanding and insights about how systems operate, suggesting the nature and intensity oflinkages among different components of systems and providing decision-makers withopportunities to think at larger scales (McCool and Stankey, 2004). Sustainability indicator setsare required to provide a picture about the current state and corresponding viability of thesystem and about the system’s contribution to the performance of other systems that depend onthem. Thus, indicator sets are determined by the system itself and the interests, needs, orobjectives of the system(s) depending on them (Bossel, 1999). The indicators are not intendedto be snapshots of the environmental situation, but to be normative to show how far the situationis from a desirable norm or from a reference situation (Bramwell, 1994).Pastille Consortium (2002b) defines a sustainability indicator as “a policy-relevantvariable that is specified and defined in such a way as to be measurable over time and/orspace”. The indicators

“can help to identify relevant elements of sustainable development, promoteunderstanding and determine and indicate the state of local sustainability. Showingthe relation between the values of two indicators or the development over time of acertain indicator helps people understand what sustainable development is about.”(Pastille Consortium, 2002a)

Indicators have been long used by biologists and naturalists to measure ecosystemhealth. However, with thousands of elements an ecosystem comprises, one cannot possiblymeasure everything, and biologists measure only key components and interactions thatrepresent a system as a whole (Bell and Morse, 1999).Therefore, it was a logical choice to utilise indicators to operationalise sustainability. Yetthe three pillars of sustainability indicated above require an indicator set to be more holistic andbroader than just the one used to measure biodiversity. All multiple dimensions of sustainabilityneed to be covered, and a number of indicators are clearly needed. This need is emphasised inChapter 40 of Agenda 21, and the most important aspects of developing sustainability indicatorsare reflected in the Bellagio Principles, a result of a meeting of scientists and decision makersheld in November 1996 in Bellagio, Italy:

11

Page 19

“These principles serve as guidelines for the whole of the assessment processincluding the choice and design of indicators, their interpretation and communicationof the result. They are interrelated and should be applied as a complete set” (Hardiand Zdan, 1997).

Some of the principles reflect similar calls for clear definition of sustainability and aholistic approach made in Agenda 21, and others lay out how the indicators should bedeveloped and used. Below is the summary of the ten Bellagio Principles:1. Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be guided by a

clear vision of sustainable development and goals that define that vision;2. Sustainability should be viewed in a holistic perspective, including social, ecological,

and economic aspects;3. Notions of equity and disparity should be considered in any perspective of

sustainable development, including resource use, over-consumption and poverty,human rights, access to services, and other non-market activities that contribute tohuman/social well-being;4. Time horizon should be long enough to capture both human and ecosystem time

scales, and the space of study should include not only local but also long distanceimpacts on people and ecosystems;5. Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should be based on a

limited number of indicators or indicator combinations based on standardisedmeasurement;6. Assessment of progress toward sustainable development should make the methods

and data that are used accessible to all;7. Progress should be effectively communicated to all;8. Broad participation is essential;9. A capacity should be developed for repeated measurement to determine trends;10. Institutional capacity for monitoring progress toward sustainable development needs

to be assured (Hardi and Zdan, 1997; Bell and Morse, 1999).2.1.3 Models and Approaches in Designing Sustainability IndicatorsJust how many and which indicators should be used is a vital question directly referringto Principle 5 of the Bellagio Principles. There are two main types of sustainability indicatorframeworks: economic and physical environmental ones. The economic frameworks (e.g. theSystem of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, SEEA) favour “weaksustainability” (i.e. where manufactured capital can take the place of natural capital), and thephysical environmental frameworks tend towards “strong sustainability,” where spent naturalcapital cannot be replaced (Walmsley, 2002).

12

Page 20

Among the latter is the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework developed by theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and used by the UN inselecting their sustainability indicators (Figure 2.1) while using the term “driving force” instead of“pressure” as a synonym (the Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework,DPSIR). Here pressures on the consumption of resources, pollution and so on are caused byhuman activities, thus altering the state of a system. This requires a response in form of policymeasures to overcome the situation. In this context, some see driving forces a new dimensionrather than a synonym because driving forces generate pressures, and some prefer adding theterm “impact” to this framework (PSIR).

Figure 2.1. Traditional pressure-state-response model

Source: Eurostat (2001)Being a rather general model, the PSR framework lacks precision and needs to beadapted. The environment-health relationship is better described by the DPSEEA (DrivingForces-Pressures-State-Exposure-Effects-Actions) model developed by the WHO (1999) toidentify the elements of environmental exposure to elicit health effects. “The DPSEEA modeldistinguishes between external (environmental, e.g. emission values in the air one breathes)and internal (in the body, e.g. concentrations of cadmium in the kidney) exposure values” (Hensand De Wit, 2003).Bossel (1999) proposes an indicator framework based on a basic orientors concept anda systems approach and derives “six fundamental environmental properties” called“environment-determined basic orientors (existence, effectiveness, freedom of action, security,